Two Private members bills have made it through third reading, Bill C-217 and Bill C-309. They are now off to the Senate for a repeat of the procedure. Bill C-217 amends the Criminal code regarding mischief; War Memorials are recognized specifically and given the same protection and punishments accorded for acts against religious institutions, though for War memorials a regimen of fines and short confinement has been added. Bill C-309 amends the Criminal Code regarding riots and unlawful assembly, with the addition of new penalties unlawful acts occur while wearing a mask.
Of the two Private Members bills if I find the Bill C-309 the most disturbing. But I will comment first on the changes regarding War Memorials. War Memorials have been elevated to the same stature as Religious institutions, with comparable punishments. That alone gives me pause. Memorials are not and should not be lumped in with Churches and the like. You may, if having caused damage to a War memorial be punished by Fine and limited incarceration; or with up to Ten years in prison. Having served in our Armed forces,RCN, I hold War Memorials as important centers for remembrance and contemplation of the sacrifice of our service persons. They should be well maintained and hold a pride of place in our communities; and be treated with respect by all citizen's regardless individual feelings on war or the military. Any mischief caused to them should be punished, but memorials are not objects of Religious veneration or at least should not be. I can accept, barely, ten years maximum sentence applied to damage to religious institutions; there may be an element of hatred or bigotry involved that left unpunished might encourage greater violence against these sacred places. The simple act of tipping over a statue; spray painting a cenotaph; all disgusting acts, but not so much that the proper punishment is ten years in prison. I whole heartily support fines or limited incarceration, 30 days, but find it egregious, a sentence of up to ten years. I see this Bill as a continuing effort of the Conservatives to elevate War and the Military. Respect yes, Worship no.
The inclusion of mask wearing as a separate offence in the CCoC is something altogether different. I do not hold that Mask wearing is essential to protest nor do I agree that it should be encouraged. A citizen ought to feel comfortable and able assemble and protest in their own person, face uncovered. I hold that if a citizen feels that they must keep their identity secret, for whatever reason, when protesting an action by government or business; our Democracy is in far worse shape than than I suspected.
I agree that there are those that go to assemblies in order to cause trouble either for political reasons or the shear mischief of it. That wearing a mask makes it less likely to find and prosecute those committing assault or property damage. These people do not have my sympathy. But i can not support ten year prison sentences for breaking a window. It is harsh and unreasonable. That is the amendment to section 65 of the CCoC. The section 66 amendment is even worse, in that if an assembly is declared unlawful, any mask wearing individual also faces up to ten years in prison.
The Harper Government must be seen, by allowing this Private Member's Bill to proceed, as acting against a citizens right to free assembly. A mask in and of it self should not be seen as criminal. The use of masks to parody or satire the powerful is a form of protest in and of itself and has a long tradition. Wearing a Stephen Harper Mask at a protest opposed to the Tar Sands should not earn you ten years in prison. The harshness of the penalty is aimed at discouraging protest. Yes, if you don't wear a mask you want be subject to this harsh penalty, but it must weigh in the minds of anyone who protests. Mistakes are made people charged with crimes they didn't, later to have the charges dropped. This legislation may have more of a chill effect on honest citizens, than dishonest. Our existing laws are fine, and work to provide a balance between allowing citizens to express themselves and keeping the peace. The Mask law, like most that infringed to some degree on the Rights of Citizens to protest their government, are intended to make it easier for police and government to handle citizen protesters. Masks do not pose a threat to the state as would be inferred from the length of the sentence.
What is common to both pieces of legislation is the harshness imposed, the increased severity of punishments meted out. All laws are an attempt to modify behaviour. Punishment and reward used to shift the public in a desired direction. Where dissent is discourage a citizen becomes less free.
No comments:
Post a Comment